AquaFunded offers three models: 1 Step, 2 Step (Standard, Pro, Elite), and Instant Funded (Standard, Pro). 1-Step Pro and 3-Step were both discontinued in July 2026.
Wave Stop is AquaFunded's name for Open Risk
Confirmed via AquaFunded's own Wave Stop article: on every funded account except Instant Funding, a combined floating loss of 2% across all open positions auto-closes everything, standard risk management, not a hidden gotcha. First trigger drops the profit split to 50%, a second breaches the account. Instant Funding carries the same 2% figure under a plain "Open Risk / RMT" label instead of the Wave Stop name.
Confirmed via AquaFunded's own Wave Stop article: on every funded account except Instant Funding, a combined floating loss of 2% across all open positions auto-closes everything, standard risk management, not a hidden gotcha. First trigger drops the profit split to 50%, a second breaches the account. Instant Funding carries the same 2% figure under a plain "Open Risk / RMT" label instead of the Wave Stop name.
Account reviews are discretionary, and the only cited standard is nearly impossible to breach honestly
AquaFunded's Terms subject every account to "routine internal statistical reviews," with "any deviations or anomalies" acted on "at AquaFunded's discretion." Asked repeatedly what that means, support gave that same boilerplate; escalated to the risk team, the answer became "we cannot provide specific details about our internal risk assessment methods or criteria." The one concrete standard ever cited is a public help-center article stating gambling means "margin usage exceeds 80% in a single trade," but at 1:100 leverage that's roughly 68–72 lots on GBPUSD with a stop under 2.1 pips, tested on a demo account. At that stop, ordinary slippage breaches the daily or max drawdown limit before margin usage ever gets there.
AquaFunded's Terms subject every account to "routine internal statistical reviews," with "any deviations or anomalies" acted on "at AquaFunded's discretion." Asked repeatedly what that means, support gave that same boilerplate; escalated to the risk team, the answer became "we cannot provide specific details about our internal risk assessment methods or criteria." The one concrete standard ever cited is a public help-center article stating gambling means "margin usage exceeds 80% in a single trade," but at 1:100 leverage that's roughly 68–72 lots on GBPUSD with a stop under 2.1 pips, tested on a demo account. At that stop, ordinary slippage breaches the daily or max drawdown limit before margin usage ever gets there.
AquaFunded markets itself against FTMO directly, the comparison doesn't hold up
Both firms run an undisclosed per-trade risk threshold (FTMO's is on its own page), but FTMO's comes with a warning email before anything worse happens; nothing here describes AquaFunded doing the same. AquaFunded's own FAQ explicitly allows hedging, martingale, and trading without a stop loss, then leans on that same unwarned 80% threshold as the backstop.
Both firms run an undisclosed per-trade risk threshold (FTMO's is on its own page), but FTMO's comes with a warning email before anything worse happens; nothing here describes AquaFunded doing the same. AquaFunded's own FAQ explicitly allows hedging, martingale, and trading without a stop loss, then leans on that same unwarned 80% threshold as the backstop.
The homepage's own "Why AquaFunded?" chart checks "Reward guarantee" and "100% refunds" against FTMO's red X's, against an undisclosed review process and refunds Trustpilot reviewers describe as NDA-conditioned. "100% Profit Split" compares a paid add-on ceiling against FTMO's unmodified baseline, AquaFunded's actual standard is 90%, and FTMO has its own path to 90% through scaling. "Free Trading Academy" is false, FTMO publishes hundreds of its own guides. "Free Gift Box" and "Free Trading Livestreams" turned up nowhere else reviewed for this page. Forex, Crypto, and Futures together is accurate.
Copy trading is allowed, cloud copier services carry an unresolved caveat
Support confirmed copy trading is allowed across account types and, verbally, in either direction, own-account only, never with a third party. But asked repeatedly about cloud services specifically (Duplikium and similar), support only ever said these are "not recommended" and refused to clarify whether that means an actual compliance risk. AquaFunded's own FAQ wording only explicitly covers copying "from AquaFunded account and external accounts," not the reverse, so we're treating that unstated direction as a soft no. See the full copy-trading breakdown for how this compares to other firms.
Support confirmed copy trading is allowed across account types and, verbally, in either direction, own-account only, never with a third party. But asked repeatedly about cloud services specifically (Duplikium and similar), support only ever said these are "not recommended" and refused to clarify whether that means an actual compliance risk. AquaFunded's own FAQ wording only explicitly covers copying "from AquaFunded account and external accounts," not the reverse, so we're treating that unstated direction as a soft no. See the full copy-trading breakdown for how this compares to other firms.
Trustpilot itself flagged this firm, and a recurring complaint pattern sits underneath that
AquaFunded's Trustpilot rating is currently unavailable, with a public "Breach of guidelines" notice after Trustpilot removed a number of fake reviews, the platform's own enforcement action, not a third party's suspicion. Underneath that sits a recurring, detailed complaint shape: traders reporting payouts denied over alleged IP-address overlap with dozens of other traders, treated as evidence of coordinated or multi-account trading, with no evidence shown and support declining to provide specifics (timestamps, device identifiers) when pushed. That's a different scenario from the legitimate same-owner copy trading confirmed above, these are allegations of undisclosed third-party account sharing, still banned regardless. The same shape of complaint shows up independently outside Trustpilot too, a ForexPeaceArmy thread ("AquaFunded, Scam, Prop Firm, Instant Funding, Withdrawal Issue") and an EliteTrader thread ("Aqua Funded rejected my payout of 14k"). Individual trader accounts, not independently verified by SwingFish, but consistent across three separate platforms is not the same thing as one disgruntled review.
AquaFunded's Trustpilot rating is currently unavailable, with a public "Breach of guidelines" notice after Trustpilot removed a number of fake reviews, the platform's own enforcement action, not a third party's suspicion. Underneath that sits a recurring, detailed complaint shape: traders reporting payouts denied over alleged IP-address overlap with dozens of other traders, treated as evidence of coordinated or multi-account trading, with no evidence shown and support declining to provide specifics (timestamps, device identifiers) when pushed. That's a different scenario from the legitimate same-owner copy trading confirmed above, these are allegations of undisclosed third-party account sharing, still banned regardless. The same shape of complaint shows up independently outside Trustpilot too, a ForexPeaceArmy thread ("AquaFunded, Scam, Prop Firm, Instant Funding, Withdrawal Issue") and an EliteTrader thread ("Aqua Funded rejected my payout of 14k"). Individual trader accounts, not independently verified by SwingFish, but consistent across three separate platforms is not the same thing as one disgruntled review.
When a refund is offered, it reportedly comes with a price: your silence
At least two separate reviewers describe AquaFunded conditioning a goodwill refund of the account fee on signing a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement. One names a specific support rep who stated the refund required signing an NDA; the other describes being told refund acceptance required agreeing to confidentiality terms, and declined specifically to keep the right to talk about the experience. Two distinct, differently-worded accounts, not the same review appearing twice. Offering money contingent on a trader staying quiet is a management-level practice, not a support rep's individual mistake, and it's worth weighing heavily against everything else on this page.
At least two separate reviewers describe AquaFunded conditioning a goodwill refund of the account fee on signing a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement. One names a specific support rep who stated the refund required signing an NDA; the other describes being told refund acceptance required agreeing to confidentiality terms, and declined specifically to keep the right to talk about the experience. Two distinct, differently-worded accounts, not the same review appearing twice. Offering money contingent on a trader staying quiet is a management-level practice, not a support rep's individual mistake, and it's worth weighing heavily against everything else on this page.
Large accounts have a temporary withdrawal cap on the first two payouts
Confirmed directly by support: on $200K accounts and above, the first two reward requests are capped at a maximum of $10,000 each, regardless of how much is actually owed. The cap is removed entirely after those first two payouts. Withdrawing a smaller amount than the cap doesn't affect drawdown either way, per the same answer.
Confirmed directly by support: on $200K accounts and above, the first two reward requests are capped at a maximum of $10,000 each, regardless of how much is actually owed. The cap is removed entirely after those first two payouts. Withdrawing a smaller amount than the cap doesn't affect drawdown either way, per the same answer.
Two entities, one behind the other
The customer-facing brand is Aqua Funded FZCO (Dubai Silicon Oasis, UAE). The entity the Terms name as actually providing the simulated trading service is AquaFunded LTD, a Saint Lucia corporation. This is the same front-jurisdiction / back-jurisdiction structure common across this industry (see FundedNext, Lark Funding elsewhere on this site), not a red flag by itself, but worth knowing which entity you're actually contracting with.
The customer-facing brand is Aqua Funded FZCO (Dubai Silicon Oasis, UAE). The entity the Terms name as actually providing the simulated trading service is AquaFunded LTD, a Saint Lucia corporation. This is the same front-jurisdiction / back-jurisdiction structure common across this industry (see FundedNext, Lark Funding elsewhere on this site), not a red flag by itself, but worth knowing which entity you're actually contracting with.
